Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Animus, you know that not all females are the same. There are politically incorrect generalizations that may have some validity (not saying that is the case in this instance) but the opportunity should be there for females so that the door is open for those who are qualified, and if that is the appropriate path for them.

But see, part of the thing is, I don't any such women, nor have I ever met one. And I can be very cynical about my experiences with women. My current girlfriend reminds me in ways of what Rowden said in one of his videos about the highest attainment of woman is to become a philosopher. My girlfriend wears the garments of a philosopher, but day-in and day-out she proves to me that her primary focus is on our relationship to each other. If I desire to share an insight into the nature of anything from Egotism to the decoherence of quantum superposition, she will find some way of twisting it back into a relational thing between her and I. She seems incapable of considering anything in and of itself or at the very least independent of herself. I doubt she could ever keep something top secret, she can't even consider the possibility of truth when her subtle emotional self-protection is at work. How is she going to suffer torture and death? And this is one of the most down-to-earth girls I've ever known.

Sure the potential is there, but that potential is currently lamenting the insanity of her work-environment, her social victim status and the shitty boyfriend she has that doesn't appear to devote any of his time to her. All the while her rage at the situation is causing her to drive them all further away. She is such a victim, so hard done by, and at the same time, so completely perfect.

For example; I was exploring the relative similarities between terms like God and Nature and looking at ways in which "atheists" attribute "God-like" qualities to terms like "nature". For example;

"The imagination of Nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man." - Richard Feynman

My girlfriend's reaction to such an inquiry was "It's a interesting post. A few hours ago, you said to me that I don't get excited by truth. Other people seem to get excited about the ideas/truths you present, but instead you see me get excited about nature. Which you seemed to indicate was a disappointment to you and a downfall of mine. Then you post above, which to me (paraphrasing) says that nature is reality is god is truth. So then you have your answer. I am excited about truth because I get so excited about nature. You won't even watch a nature program with me and the cats, it's a waste of time to you, where as it always amazes me. If I can see rules of reality through studying various species and their strategies and get excited by that, it's better than any ideas/truths presented because it's a living walking embodiment of truth with the purest unbiased examples. The buffalo doesn't care what I think or isn't going to change for me, it's just is. It has no delusions of choice but lives the rules of reality and there's no ego inside confusing the buffalo with grandiose ideas."

Her response has way more to do with our personal relationship than it has to do with the point I was making. But I notice how it ties many threads together into a gross justification for lazying around on the couch watching David Attenborough while claiming to be performing spiritual work.

A few weeks ago she got into a car accident and one night she dissapointedly rolled over in bed to say "I wish you would think to give me a massage when I am hurting." and I thought this was pretty demanding. She restated "No, I just wish you would." and I said "It still sounds like you are disappointed in me, as if its something I 'should' have thought of. The fact is, I've maybe received one massage in my whole life, and I've spent most of my life alone so massages just aren't a big part of my consciousness. It doesn't occur to me to get or give a massage. I just deal with muscle tension by enduring it." and she "But I was just in an accident!" and I "I understand, but that alone doesn't ensure the notion arises in my mind, if you want a massage kindly ask and I'll give you one." "But I shouldn't have to ask you, you should be concerned enough about me!" Finally I said "I wish you would show some excitement at some of the truths I uncover in my studies, you don't seem to show much excitement at ideas at all." and she "I'm sorry your ideas don't blow me away." and I "They aren't 'my' ideas, they are ideas or truths in abstraction, I don't want you to be blown away by 'my' ideas, I want you to understand them yourself, know them to be true and I wish you would feel some excitement at the same time, but you don't, and it's not up to you to fulfill that wish for me, but I think it would be in your best interest if you took truth a bit more seriously."

Animus wrote:It doesn't occur to me to get or give a massage. I just deal with muscle tension by enduring it." and she "But I was just in an accident!" and I "I understand, but that alone doesn't ensure the notion arises in my mind, if you want a massage kindly ask and I'll give you one." "But I shouldn't have to ask you, you should be concerned enough about me!"

She's right. Based entirely on what you have presented here. She is in an accident, and you are not looking for her sore spots? The massage thing can lead to other things. There is nothing wrong with instigating a massage with selfish intent. Done correctly, you will have a win-win situation.

Animus wrote:My girlfriend wears the garments of a philosopher, but day-in and day-out she proves to me that her primary focus is on our relationship to each other. If I desire to share an insight into the nature of anything from Egotism to the decoherence of quantum superposition, she will find some way of twisting it back into a relational thing between her and I.

Kind of like how every thread you have participated in lately somehow ends up with your girlfriend in it?

Animus wrote:My girlfriend wears the garments of a philosopher, but day-in and day-out she proves to me that her primary focus is on our relationship to each other. If I desire to share an insight into the nature of anything from Egotism to the decoherence of quantum superposition, she will find some way of twisting it back into a relational thing between her and I.

Kind of like how every thread you have participated in lately somehow ends up with your girlfriend in it?

Not really similar at all, but I'll stop referencing her so you don't jump to the wrong conclusions.

Animus wrote:My girlfriend wears the garments of a philosopher, but day-in and day-out she proves to me that her primary focus is on our relationship to each other. If I desire to share an insight into the nature of anything from Egotism to the decoherence of quantum superposition, she will find some way of twisting it back into a relational thing between her and I.

Kind of like how every thread you have participated in lately somehow ends up with your girlfriend in it?

Not really similar at all, but I'll stop referencing her so you don't jump to the wrong conclusions.

Mensa says: You obviously don't see why Elizabeth said that do you Animus? She's not jumping to wrong conclusion at all, she knows exactly what's she's doing, and so do I, but guess what Animus, that's for you to figure out, since you're such a smart guy.

Ok, so you can tell the difference between someone referencing an event for the purposes of clarifying a point and someone referencing an event because its the only thing they can think of? If you can tell the difference between a layperson who carries water down a path and an enlightened sage who does the same thing, then you are beyond the ability of any human. Chances are though, you are just over-confident and proud of your presumed intellectual abilities.

I was just referencing that I'd seen an awful lot of references to the GF lately. I know that A was making a point with each one, but that many points from one source started looking like the biased sample fallacy - and I took the vague similarity between what he was saying and what he was doing to make the point - and I think he got it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I was just referencing that I'd seen an awful lot of references to the GF lately. I know that A was making a point with each one, but that many points from one source started looking like the biased sample fallacy - and I took the vague similarity between what he was saying and what he was doing to make the point - and I think he got it.

I also mixed in studies and a reference to the The Psychology of Secrets by Anita Kelly. I wasn't relying solely on the example, but used the example, as for the purposes of an example. I could have just as easily used my mother, or any other woman in my life.

I have lengthy conversations with my mother on the essential truths of reality and the teachings of world religions and the results of modern science. All the time I can hear a little voice in her head yelling to her her "CONGENIALITY!". She overlooks everything I say that doesn't accord with the notion of congeniality and interjects with some shallow comment about "We love people the way they are." but this kind of "Love" is a mutual ego-protectionism racket. I've been talking to my mother about this for years and I can tell that she is always wanting to tell me "Don't be so critical".

Ah, yes - actually I did admire your posts with actual statistics and/or links to statistics in them. I thought about giving you a compliment about them, but for a variety of board-specific reasons I did not make a public compliment, and I neglected to send you a pm with a private compliment. I'm sorry.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Ah, yes - actually I did admire your posts with actual statistics and/or links to statistics in them. I thought about giving you a compliment about them, but for a variety of board-specific reasons I did not make a public compliment, and I neglected to send you a pm with a private compliment. I'm sorry.

I can manage without compliments. Its more or less the interpretation of my motives, something I continue to think Genius members have a hard time with. I think most of the people here are really intelligent and wise, but then I see two of them arguing about rudimentary facts and think to myself "Don't they both already know?" and I think they do, but they argue because they project egotism onto what they read in the other person. They are attuned to see it and when they see their fellow sage carrying a bucket of water, they say; You must be so egotistical to be carrying water like that.

I know some here don't get, but a lot of us do. We need to develop an attitude of giving each other some benefit of the doubt, that when carrying water they aren't hoarding or doing it for other egotistical means.

I think that it is precisely the "thou shalt not compliment" attitude that is fostered here that leads to misunderstandings sometimes. Compliments are part of the cultural meme, possibly even part of the human hard-wiring, that balance out the criticisms. We keep a subconscious tally of how many positive strokes vs how many negative pokes we get, and the general direction they come from. The balance, range, frequency, and direction tell us things on a different level than just the words and logical weighing of the words will tell us.

If we actually list both the positive and negative, it seems more like a critique because it is more balanced. If only negative and neutral inquiry are expressed and silence means either it is understood and there is nothing wrong with it or that it or the poster is too bad to be worthy of a response, or maybe the thing kept silent about was never even noticed - the negative starts to ring much more loudly and the inferred meaning is more likely to become skewed.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I think that it is precisely the "thou shalt not compliment" attitude that is fostered here that leads to misunderstandings sometimes. Compliments are part of the cultural meme, possibly even part of the human hard-wiring, that balance out the criticisms. We keep a subconscious tally of how many positive strokes vs how many negative pokes we get, and the general direction they come from. The balance, range, frequency, and direction tell us things on a different level than just the words and logical weighing of the words will tell us.

If we actually list both the positive and negative, it seems more like a critique because it is more balanced. If only negative and neutral inquiry are expressed and silence means either it is understood and there is nothing wrong with it or that it or the poster is too bad to be worthy of a response, or maybe the thing kept silent about was never even noticed - the negative starts to ring much more loudly and the inferred meaning is more likely to become skewed.

I concur, without feedback it is difficult for us to make accurate judgements. Forgive me for falling back on another example from my relations with my girlfriend. Historically I have not been very good at doing chores and I have looked to her for some guidance. I ask her how she performs a specific task. When I perform the task she does her best to withold feedback and I'm left wondering if I've replicated her results properly. Early on in our relationship I was of a different opinion, more akin to the board here, and I asked her not to "dote" on me with compliments. Since then I've been without informative feedback on a lot of occasions, and when I've explicitly asked for feedback she wondered if I didn't just want praise. As it turns out I perform most things quite well and don't need much feedback, but that's something I just didn't know until I got the feedback from her.